Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Canada should allow concealed carry of handguns in the state, perhaps the rather high rape rate would go down.

At 6/10/09 03:35 PM, Fim wrote:

At 6/10/09 01:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

without guns, there will always be a baseball bat, knife, crossbow, blowgun, etc

Just out of curiosity , say they ban guns, baseball bats, knives, crossbows, long bows, blowguns etc. even rocks & sticks get banned !
What do you do with the people, who bare ass naked, are lethal weapons just because of their training in fighting techniques. Sure you ban fighting training next, right...then what, have humans arms & legs cut off ? everyone kept chained up ,hand cuffed ?

We are able to make a weapon out of just about anything, so IMO banning something because it can be used as a weapon is a useless gesture. Banning won't work .

At 6/10/09 01:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/10/09 08:21 AM, Fim wrote: I could say the same about you

at least he isn't blaming inanimate objects.

I'd like to draw your attention back to my very first comment, that there is a difference between cultery and guns - which were designed purely to kill.

All this bullshit about defending yourself against potential gun weilding criminals (who I might add can buy guns just as legally as you can) or against the government, equipped with tanks and nukes and a collosal army, just sounds like paranoid excuses with no real basis. I'm just about done explaining myself in this thread, if you have any more points, please make sure beforehand that I've not already answered them in the past 2 pages.

A. guns can be used against criminals that are armed with something other than guns or even un-armed such as a strong rapist overpowering a victim with their bare hands.
B. They can't buy them just as easily as citizens can, they have to get a background check which includes a criminal record.
C. Would there ever be a citizen revolt it wouldn't be that cut and dry, the military might split up, and we could get foreign aid (like in the revolutionary war, which the British tried to suppress in part by restricting citizens from fire-arms). Governments have become tyrannical and oppressive all the time and to say it will never happen agin is foolish. If they were we would still need an armed populace to get rid of them.

Also you've yet to prove that self-defense isn't a legitimate reason to own a gun in fact people have posted stories of people using guns for self-defence.

At 6/10/09 03:34 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: What? I was saying that he said he saw no other purpose besides killing people yet he mentioned one in the same post...

Oh so I quoted the wrong person then, sorry.

At 6/9/09 08:26 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:

At 6/9/09 07:04 PM, RussianGiant wrote:
i would ban all guns. no civilian use except for army or hunting purposes.
i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody, not self defence[sic].

...hunting purposes.
i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody

Look at that, you rebutted your own argument! If only more people would do that it would make arguing much easier.

So all those people who win medals at the Olympic shooting events will eventually kill people?

At 6/9/09 03:47 PM, Fim wrote:

you miss the point completely. you wanna close your eyes and scream "this isn't about crime!" when it very much IS about crime. without crime there would be no reason who scream for a gun ban, would there? try to deny this point.

I think a ban on guns would reduce gun crime yes. amazingly.

No it won't criminals will still get guns on the black market and citizens will be left unarmed.

That's because you're a brainwashed liberal sheep! you can only see the bad in guns, and totally ignore the good uses for them. I can take a shotgun into the wood, blast a large animal, like a deer, and completely remove meat from my food bill for weeks! Or I can take my rifle to a shooting range and vent some steam by blowing away targets, as opposed to clobbering my neighbor.

By that logic your a brainwashed republican NRA sheep! You can't grasp the fact that the only purpose of a gun is to kill, whether it's a animal or a human. It's always going to be my view that there are better alternatives to using a gun for almost all curcumstances.

Target practice and shooting galleries are non-lethal uses for guns, FFS they're even in the Olympics

Oh and tell me if your government ever decided to become tyrannical, oppressive and/or a dictatorship, what would you use than as a "better alternative" to throw them out if you couldn't use guns? Armed citizenry is a defense against tyranny and when you unarm them the government can then start oppressing the people with little to no resistance.

Everything to do with crime, which is WHY YOU WANT GUNS BANNED.

I want guns banned because guns are bad mmmmk.

Would you also like alcohol, and cigarettes banned? How about fatty foods and skateboards?

Guns make it SO much easier. In the heat of the moment anyone could pick up a gun and kill someone, if that wasn't so easy I don't think the firearm murder rate would be as high as it is in the US. I've explained this soooo much I think you are either just plain idiotic or maybe you just won't listen to reason because you're too set in your personal view.

I think you're the idiotic one who won't listen to reason because you're too brainwashed in your liberal propaganda. someone states reasons why guns shouldn't be banned, you reject them, stating that they have nothing to do with gun bans.

If someone gives me a reason that outclasses all the cons of guns then I would change my view. However the negatives of gun ownership in the US are so staggering that the only justification I can find for them still being legal is that they have been legal for a long time and people dont want to change,

Ok how about fairness. Many many people can own guns and not hurt a person or animal with them, to take their guns away just because some low life criminal scum (who can get their guns off the black market anyway) kill people with them is unjust and unfair.

for fucks sake they voted for diversity in britian's got talent.

proof that the UK has no common sense...

dont call me darling

darling, the US voted for bush - twice. That's why I have no faith in the intuition of the public to do what is morally right, epsecially when it comes to guns. There's always going to be 1 physco who will buy a gun and use it for the wrong reasons.

Yeah and if they can't get it from stores than they can get it illegally like the Columbine boys did.

Also taking away people's right to own guns when they have committed no crime and are no threat is perfectly moral and ok. </sarcasm>

At 1/18/09 02:36 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/17/09 11:20 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Keep in mind schools can all ready search backpacks and lockers for no reason

They don't search backpacks and lockers for no reason.
I believe most of the times, there are very reasonable reasons.

I've heard a story about a school who searched everyone's locker all at once looking for drugs.

Well at the very least they don't need probable cause like police do, they only need reasonable suspicion or something like that.

They never actually found anything on her. First they searched the bag then stripped search her.

Oh and what's wrong with a simple pat down?

You know the schools are abusing power when they think strip searching a 13 year old is ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen .strip.search/index.html

"A 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain reliever will have her case heard at the Supreme Court."

" The case involves Savana Redding, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honor student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Earlier that day the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills in the possession of one of Redding's classmates. That student, facing punishment, accused Redding of providing her with the 400-milligram pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. She denied the accusations.

A search of Redding's backpack found nothing. Then, although she had never had prior disciplinary problems, a strip-search was conducted with the help of a school nurse and Wilson's assistant, both females. According to court records, she was ordered to strip to her underwear and her bra was pulled out. Again, no drugs were found.

In an affidavit, Redding said, "The strip-search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Redding and her family sued, and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, ruled against the school."

Keep in mind schools can all ready search backpacks and lockers for no reason

At 12/23/08 10:11 PM, nonameowns wrote: This year, new policy on the stairways. The left stairway is only for up direction while the right is only for down direction. New principle said it's for safety reason. Pretty bullshit and add more time to walk to class.

Yes we can't let kids be bumping into each other on the stairway. Think of the chaos that would unfold.

At 12/23/08 04:38 PM, poxpower wrote: Someone should make a game where you gather statements from Popes and you have to guess in what century they were said.

That would be pretty amusing actually.

At 12/23/08 03:56 PM, ReiperX wrote: It's their right to speak their beliefs.

Who here is saying they don't have that right?

At 12/23/08 04:05 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:34 PM, reddge wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:32 PM, zNelson24 wrote: That isnt right. You should make this more...public. Last time I checked, you couldnt boot someone out of school because of their medical condition.

They don't boot him out, they just mark him for dress code violations.

Thats still discrimination, you should seek action man.

No kidding, either get a lawyer or get the media involved.

The bad press alone may make them change policy, and if not I'm sure the lawyer can pull something.

They showed us a video in our school about harassment policies (which of course everyone made fun of later, "the wind's harassing me"). And apparently it showed a story about a guy who called a girl ugly on one of those hot or not websites, and then it showed how she was hurt and all but then it showed the SCHOOL getting the kid in trouble for it.

I'm pretty sure the guy did it during his own private time away from school. I remember thinking this is gotta be the most BULLSHIT thing I have ever heard. I also remember thinking if I was in his shoes I'd sue the school.

Anyway my 6th grade middle school had some stupid policies, you had to keep your shirt tucked in all the time and whatnot and I have two stories about their stupid policies over doing it.

I thought this random kid was going to kick my friend off the bleachers, it looked that way but he was joking and I didn't realize it.
Anyway I told him that if you do that 'I'll kill you' in a usual tone.

He knew I wasn't serious but his friends told him he could get me in trouble for saying that so he did.

I told the school officials all this stuff and they still gave me the maximum sentence: suspension for X days (don't remember how long).

Then I was drawing a bomb in one class, not a real bomb, but a fake cartoony black circle with a fuse. Just doodles. They tried to get me in trouble for that but my Mom threatened to get a lawyer and they dropped it.

I've heard they loosened up a bit but I haven't heard anything about that school in a long time.

Sorry about the title, damn you character limit

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleM olt/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222

At 12/9/08 05:38 PM, marchohare wrote:

To be fair, the Church isn't being hypocritical: it opposes the death penalty, as well as abortion. It doesn't believe homosexuals--or anyone--should be executed. At the same time, it opposed giving homosexuals special status, as if executing gays is worse than executing anybody else.

I don't agree with the church's position, but I don't see it as hypocritical. It seems, in fact, fairly consistent.

No it's not, the Vatican is against murder (of course) yet at the same time it doesn't like giving the death penalty to murderers, why wouldn't the same logic apply to homosexuals?

The law doesn't give special treatment to gays it doesn't say 'ye shall not execute a gay man' it says 'ye shall not make being gay a crime' that's it. The Vatican claims this will somehow lead to gay marriage, which I find very suspicious.

At 12/9/08 09:21 PM, CBP wrote: Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals"

Taken from your first link. Why don't you read the whole thing next time? I do think that gays should be allowed to marry, but this is slander.

Well I tried to make the title vatican opposes un resolution banning homosexual executions or something like that but it wouldn't fit. That was the closest I could get. Although I see your point, I should've put that quote in.

Liberal can be manipulated a lot.

What do you call PC freaks who want to make sure we use soft language about minorities and people with certain sensitivities?

Liberals.

What do you call free speech nuts who want to make it Ok to say almost anything, no matter how profane no matter who it offends, even if it shows disrespect for God, patriotism and "traditional values" even uncensored on national TV?

Liberals.

What do you call people who support nanny state government that would get rid of handguns fatty foods, cigarettes etc. for the good of the populace?

Liberals.

What do you call people who want to legalize pot, smack, prostitution, assisted suicide and other such things because they believe what people do is their own business and government should not get involved?

Liberals.

At 12/8/08 08:47 PM, Korriken wrote: I've given this a bit more thought and my question would be this.

"How would the UN even TRY to force Islamic countries, such as Iran, which has mandatory death to homosexuals to not only STOP this long held tradition of executing homosexuals, but also to PROTECT them in defiance of Sharia Law? "

Good going France, you bunch of stupid snail huffing day dreamers... I could just imagine this passing and a bunch of gay Iranians decide to jump up and publicly declare their gayness.... Then they end up danging from a piece of rope attached to a crane.

Personally, before *I* would let such a notion pass, I would ask everyone "How in the bloody hell are we going to enforce this drivel?" Personally I'm 100% against wasteful symbolic legislation on any level. that time and energy could have been used for something with meaning.

And if the vatican had just come out and said 'this legislation won't do jack, so we're not supporting it for that reason' I think most people would be fine with that. Alas they didn't.

I believe people should be allowed to own very heavy weapons if they don't harm anyone else.

Heavy weapons, military style guns, rpgs (maybe), all sorts of things.

If they don't plan on killing anyone, threatening anyone or destroying other people's property then why not?

Yeah they MIGHT harm people but a guy with a car might run someone over, a guy with a chainsaw might recreate grand theft auto but no one cares. If we're going to assume people are going to do something illegal with heavy weapons isn't that along the lines of 'guilty until proven innocent'?

Oh and 'you don't need it' is not and should never be justification for 'you shouldn't be allowed to have it'.

Now some of you might bring up nukes. Letting private citizens own nukes is a security risk because there's no guarantee they will be able to keep them secure from people who might want to take them. There's also no guarantee they might sell them to unscrupulous fellows. A man going on a rampage with a gun can be brought down before the body count gets high but a nuke could potentially kill hundreds of thousands.

Then there's radiation and the fact that it's very hard to launch a nuke anywhere without it affecting someone else's property.

On the other hand if some really rich chaps wants to buy an uninhabited island then blown it up with a nuke, then that would be ok, if it doesn't affect the other waters too much. However the nuke should never actually be in his possession and it should be carefully handled by the government (and the cost should come directly from the rich chap not tax money).

Err sorry about that folks, I guess I screwed up trying to quote it, I wish this place had a preview button.

Remember folks these are the same people who disapproved of Hussein's execution.

Yahoo News

The resolution would have decriminalized homosexuality and not let countries jail or execute gays for being gay.

:Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

:"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said."

:"Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy's leading gay rights group, said the Vatican's reasoning smacked of "total idiocy and madness."

:"The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals," Grillini told Reuters."

So not jailing and executing gay people will eventually lead to gay marriage and reverse discrimination. What an amazing use of the slippery slope fallacy.

Sounds kind of paranoid don't ya think.

Now consider this

the second link

:"The Holy See takes this occasion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life from conception to natural death,"

But apparently when defending human life comes with a small chance of accepting gays they back away.

Hey I just discovered a new way to spell hypocrite

V.A.T.I.C.A.N.

I remember the daily show's black correspondent (sorry senior executive correspondent who happens to be black) saying 'it feels good to be the man'.

At 11/15/08 11:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/15/08 10:28 PM, KingNaNU wrote: But now that obama is the president. The race card is out of the question for black people.

for historical reasons he is black. however, when it comes to the race card.... he's white. Race card stays. :\

The race card should go away permanently. It only divides us further and it's an unholy relic of political correctness. Burn it I say.

At 11/15/08 11:37 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: We shouldn't have to deal with it, period. It's not our fault that our ancestors enslaved their answers and therefore is no reason why we have to suddenly accommodate oversensitive morons, of any race.

Darn typos didn't mean to put 'answers'.

At 11/15/08 07:18 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 11/15/08 07:10 PM, Jon-86 wrote: their the idiot

Lol

Black people may have their fun with the racist card, but look again, and you'll see that we kinda enslaved them for over a hundred years. Deal with it.

We shouldn't have to deal with it, period. It's not our fault that our ancestors enslaved their answers and therefore is no reason why we have to suddenly accommodate oversensitive morons, of any race.

Using the race card is entirely their decision, having ancestors who were slave owners is random and completely uncontrollable.

At 11/15/08 02:12 AM, DraGoN-RaGe-9001 wrote: i blame the parents...maybe he needed a few more smacks to the head when he was young.

Or he could be suffering from a mental problem that his parents were incapable of dealing with. It could be a birth defect who knows. Given the information we have I don't think we can place blame on the parents just yet.

At 11/13/08 06:51 AM, rostitute wrote: See this is the sort of person who should be hanged...

This is exactly the sort of person who deserves not to live, people who are willing to take a life don't deserve theirs....

Then we will hang the executioner, then hang the guy who executed the executioner and so on and so forth.

At 11/12/08 06:02 AM, HogWashSoup wrote:

At 11/12/08 04:29 AM, Dejomel wrote:

At 11/12/08 04:04 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: White men have guilt? No we dont.

Try not to use "we" in this. Thank you very much. I dont regard myself as fucked up as you :)

But seriously, on the topic of Obama being voted president so people can prove their not rascist. That was a fucking stupid thing to do.

Maybe they voted him in because they thought he could fix the country up. I mean I am white and I almost never notice he is black. I didnt vote for him cause he is black, I voted for him because I believe he is the right man for the job.

You say they voted for Obama to prove they are not racist? There were a ton of people that voted for him, I doubt you had the time to interview each and every one. Plus, people that try to prove they are not racist ether are racist, were racist, or just stupid.

I think it's more of the lines of unproven theory than 'I' dead sure about it'. I think some people may have voted strictly for that reason, I don't know that for a fact, but yeah.

At 11/11/08 11:19 PM, poxpower wrote:
Another somewhat similar example:

During the 1800s, Britain went around Egypt pilfering the Pyramids and stealing national treasures of cultural significance. Those are now in British museums.

Should they give it back to Egypt? Even if you argue that they protected it from the elements and the thieves for all this time?

Assuming that by Britain you mean the British government then yes. The victim (Egypt) and the guilty party (Britain) are still around so yes they still owe them.

What good is protecting against elements and thieves do if you still don't own it?

Lovers of history and museums (like myself, not trying to sound pompous or anything) might owe the British something but the Brits still owe Egypt something.

At 11/11/08 03:43 PM, Chavic wrote:

At 11/10/08 07:53 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Some relationship test in the UK apparently proved that boys have no respect for girls anymore.
It is okay to get a girl drunk enough to have sex with her and she alone is responsible for any consequences later on. It is acceptable to pressure a girl to have sex.

You hear a lot of kids talk about girls like they are sluts and if they get raped it's supposedly acceptable, if they were wearing slutty clothes. Also girls get adressed improperly at social events or online chats. Apparently it's okay to demand tits or naked pics within 5 minutes, cause they are probably sluts anyway.

I am a bit shocked about these things. How does NG experience interaction with girls? Is it acceptable to treat girls like sluts, even if they wear tight shirts/mini skirts/...?

This isn't really "new" news, but it is disappointing all the same. I think it is ignorant to blame any girl for her rape, even if she was completely naked. I think all rapists should be castrated and left to bleed to death.

Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional here in the U.S. sorry about that.

Oh and do you consider consexual sex with a drunk girl rape? Because there's a lot to be said about the hypocrisies in our law involving that. I.E.

If a drunk person agrees to sex it's not thier fault, punish the partner with rape if the person regrets it later and presses charges.

If a drunk person gets in a car and starts driving, it's clearly their fault. Throw the book at them.

If a man "can't control himself" how is that the woman's fault? Plenty of men are able to live lives without raping women.
But blaming women for their own rape is a common opinion around the world. In the Middle East two girls were set to be punished with hundreds of lashes by a whip "because they put themselves in a position that allowed them to be gang raped".

The Middle East is screwed up in terms of women's rights we all know that. Oh and there's a theory that says that people sometimes blame the victim so that they don't have to come to terms with their own vulnerability. It's sort of a denial of the possibility that it might happen to them. "Oh she only got raped because she dresses like a slut/provactively flirts with everyone/whatever I don't do that so I'll be fine".